Romney won the primaries because they were fixed by the establishment and helped by the kool aid drinkers who were stupid enough to believe that only Romney could win.

fight like a girl on March 21, 2014 at 6:36 PM

That is so silly. Nobody fixed anything. Romney whipped one social con after another, and then defeated Gingrich in the 2 critical Florida debates decisively. Santorum won some rump caucuses with social con protest votes, but it was a done deal after Florida. Palin and others helped drag it out, while Obama attacked Romney. A little unity and we might have won that election.

Reagan was a Goldwater libertarian.
John the Libertarian on March 22, 2014 at 4:26 AM

Are you high? I wish you libertarians would stop rewriting history. Reagan was a communist fighting CONSERVATIVE! He was also a social conservative who wore his love of God on his sleeve. He did not believe in the ” do whatever you feel like” libertarian creed. He was pro life and anti drugs.

Line the candidates up, and we’ll see how they’re playing on Main Street during the debates and the state campaigns. In the case of Romney, we had the guy who won the most primaries, and who also polled the best in a general election. That’s all we can do without a crystal ball. If Cruz or some other self proclaimed conservative has that going for him, then I will certainly get behind him or anyone else. Right now, it looks like Rand Paul is our best chance, and it’s not even close.

cimbri on March 21, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Romney won the primaries because they were fixed by the establishment and helped by the kool aid drinkers who were stupid enough to believe that only Romney could win. He didn’t. And neither did that other sure fire winner, McCain. Paul is not as bad as them but it is too early to be choosing the nominee. I have been very disappointed with Paul and his luke warm response to repealing Obamacare and his support for some type of amnesty. By the way, both of these are social issues that effect the economy.

Romney didn’t lose because he struggled with social conservatives. Evangelicals turned out in record numbers and Romney won 80% of that voting block. Romney lost because he didn’t stand for anything in particular, except being “not-Obama.” McCain’s chances ended when the economy crashed in September.

midgeorgian on March 21, 2014 at 3:04 PM

I am a social conservative but not an Evangelical. The only elections where Evangelicals made a difference were in 1980, 1984 and 2004. Four million Republicans did not vote in 2012 because Romney, as you said, didn’t stand for anything. Mccain didn’t stand for anything either. Both men talked about the economy and stayed away from social issues and yet they lost…because they stood for nothing! You made my point!

Line the candidates up, and we’ll see how they’re playing on Main Street during the debates and the state campaigns. In the case of Romney, we had the guy who won the most primaries, and who also polled the best in a general election. That’s all we can do without a crystal ball. If Cruz or some other self proclaimed conservative has that going for him, then I will certainly get behind him or anyone else. Right now, it looks like Rand Paul is our best chance, and it’s not even close.

Well said! Romney and McCain were the perfect “can’t lose” candidates, according to the establishment and the liberal media. Neither uttered a word about social conservative issues yet they both lost. So why do these secular/atheist libertarians and establishment republicans keep blaming social conservatives? Let’s run a real conservative in 2016 and see what happens.

fight like a girl on March 21, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Romney didn’t lose because he struggled with social conservatives. Evangelicals turned out in record numbers and Romney won 80% of that voting block. Romney lost because he didn’t stand for anything in particular, except being “not-Obama.” McCain’s chances ended when the economy crashed in September.

Did I miss something? Which Republican has ran on Social Issues in a Presidential Election? Come to think about it, what did McCain or Romney stand for? I have no idea. If you can’t state your case on social issues, how can you state your case on fiscal issues? Half the posts that I have seen here act like we have had a bunch of Santorums winning the Presidential primaries. If you can’t stand on what you believe in, why should anyone believe that you have any principles. That was Romney’s problem.

Brock Robamney on March 21, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Well said! Romney and McCain were the perfect “can’t lose” candidates, according to the establishment and the liberal media. Neither uttered a word about social conservative issues yet they both lost. So why do these secular/atheist libertarians and establishment republicans keep blaming social conservatives? Let’s run a real conservative in 2016 and see what happens.

He didn’t say “forget” about social issues, just to realize that this is not the hill to die on in 2016…
TMOverbeck on March 21, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Did I miss something? Which Republican has ran on Social Issues in a Presidential Election? Come to think about it, what did McCain or Romney stand for? I have no idea. If you can’t state your case on social issues, how can you state your case on fiscal issues? Half the posts that I have seen here act like we have had a bunch of Santorums winning the Presidential primaries. If you can’t stand on what you believe in, why should anyone believe that you have any principles. That was Romney’s problem.

It seems like your criticism is misdirected. I seen all your posts praising Ron Paul, and now you are calling him establishment ? And when I point out substantive problems with Rand Paul, I should ignore them? Sounds pretty trollish to me….

So it is okay for the left to wag their fingers, shove gay marriage, abortion on demand and pot dens down our throats but it is not okay for anyone to have an opposing opinion? BTW, the overwhelming majority of social conservatives aren’t “slut-bashing” or “gay-marriage bashing”. Your choice of words to demonize social conservatives speaks volumes. You failed to comment on Rand’s support of amnesty or his tepid support for repealing Obamacare. Rand is a libertarian first, a conservative a distant second. Lately, he has proven that he is a politician above all else. He has swallowed the kool-aid that the left, the media and republican establishment has produced that says conservatives can’t win. FOUR MILLION REPUBLICANS STAYED HOME IN 2012! They didn’t stay home because Romney was too conservative. Also, Romney won Independents. Funny how the democrats win because of their base but republicans are told that they can’t do the same, even though both parties have about the same number of voters who claim their party affiliation. I think it is time for people like you to stop bashing social conservatives.

He didn’t say “forget” about social issues, just to realize that this is not the hill to die on in 2016… that the GOP needs to focus their message, and that message is economy, jobs, government waste, government intrusion, oh yeah did I mention economy? And how’s that “affordable” care act workin’ for ya?

The younger voters of today are for gay marriage, legal pot, and no more federal meddling in these and other social issues. I’m pretty sure a good chunk of them are for fiscal conservatism, but you’re just gonna push them away by continuing to wag your finger and shout “SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!” We need their votes NOW to save America from economic collapse, so I think we gotta cool it with the slut-shaming and gay-marriage-bashing for the time being.

TMOverbeck on March 21, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Without holding the principles of individual liberty, RESPONSIBILITY & SELF-CONTROL, “fiscal coservatism” is a weak reed that will break at the first cry of “I waaa fweee nummies!” from the HoneyBooBoo crowd.

At first glance, Paul seems like a good prospect to lead the GOP in 2016. Then he states that conservatives should forget social issues, backs amnesty for illegals, misstates Reagan’s views on foreign policy as he attempts to smear Cruz and cozies up to McConnell and the other establishment CINOs. At second glance, one realizes that Paul is not special after all. Sad.

fight like a girl on March 21, 2014 at 1:01 AM

He didn’t say “forget” about social issues, just to realize that this is not the hill to die on in 2016… that the GOP needs to focus their message, and that message is economy, jobs, government waste, government intrusion, oh yeah did I mention economy? And how’s that “affordable” care act workin’ for ya?

The younger voters of today are for gay marriage, legal pot, and no more federal meddling in these and other social issues. I’m pretty sure a good chunk of them are for fiscal conservatism, but you’re just gonna push them away by continuing to wag your finger and shout “SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!” We need their votes NOW to save America from economic collapse, so I think we gotta cool it with the slut-shaming and gay-marriage-bashing for the time being.

That he is supporting the senior senator from his home state, that he is supporting his party’s leader in the Senate, that he is attempting to prevent a Democrat from taking a seat in KY ( a state that has a habit of electing Dems statewide, including their sitting governor)… these are all to be considered red flags?

Are you high?

In one breath, you attack him for supporting the establishment, and in the next breath, you try to say he is just like his old man. Yeah. Ron Paul, well-known establishmentarian.

If your going to senselessly attack the man, at least try to figure out which direction you’re coming from…

Save this and bookmark it — the moderate has spoken and she is never wrong.
B.A. Moderate on March 21, 2014 at 4:25 AM

On this topic you are. Cruz and Santorum are 2 very different people. Cruz runs on Fiscally and Socially conservative issues. Santorum runs on Social Conservative issues only. Rand Paul is not the conservative people think he is. His endorsement of Mitch McConnell should be a red flag. But more specifically, he is pro amnesty, pro crony capitalism, anti 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment, and is an isolationist

]]>By: B.A. Moderatehttp://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/20/video-rand-paul-goes-behind-enemy-lines-at-berkeley/comment-page-3/#comment-7852596
Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:25:07 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=301523#comment-7852596Rand is the best hope the GOP will have to win the white house. He trusts voters to make up their own minds about social issues and to let the constitutional process take its course. This is what will draw young people as well as the moderate Democrats.
Cruz and Santorum repel these groups with their my way is the only way approach. Neither exhibit any real respect for people who don’t agree with them and they would not win in a general election. They will rightfully argue that Obama has the my way or the highway mentality but voters are savvy enough to recognize hypocrisy.

So what you are likely to see is Rand as the nominee after a primary season in which Cruz, Perry and Santorum split the partisan conservative vote. He will pick Rubio as the VP. Christie will be the keynote speaker and Cruz the red meat speaker. Rand will win with over 350 electoral votes and the hyperpartisan element of the conservative base will claim it was their contribution alone that made it all possible.

Save this and bookmark it — the moderate has spoken and she is never wrong.

]]>By: fight like a girlhttp://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/20/video-rand-paul-goes-behind-enemy-lines-at-berkeley/comment-page-3/#comment-7852404
Fri, 21 Mar 2014 05:05:11 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=301523#comment-7852404One more thing, liberal college kids liked his father Ron too.
]]>By: fight like a girlhttp://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/20/video-rand-paul-goes-behind-enemy-lines-at-berkeley/comment-page-3/#comment-7852400
Fri, 21 Mar 2014 05:01:31 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=301523#comment-7852400At first glance, Paul seems like a good prospect to lead the GOP in 2016. Then he states that conservatives should forget social issues, backs amnesty for illegals, misstates Reagan’s views on foreign policy as he attempts to smear Cruz and cozies up to McConnell and the other establishment CINOs. At second glance, one realizes that Paul is not special after all. Sad.
]]>By: rndmusrnmhttp://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/20/video-rand-paul-goes-behind-enemy-lines-at-berkeley/comment-page-3/#comment-7852264
Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:10:53 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=301523#comment-7852264ITT: Threatened statists who see their political relevancy waning.
]]>By: AesopFanhttp://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/20/video-rand-paul-goes-behind-enemy-lines-at-berkeley/comment-page-3/#comment-7851651
Fri, 21 Mar 2014 01:26:15 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=301523#comment-7851651

This is what you have to do. Get out of the comfort zone, go to the other groups and start selling individual liberty and conservatism. The groundwork has to be laid now, which Paul is doing. So many Republicans wait till the last 2 months before a general election to pretend to start loving the other constituencies. These voters aren’t dumb, you have to pay them some attention during the years before an election.

cimbri on March 20, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Blah blah, blah. Republicans “take flak” for everything. If Paul wins, this will be why. I can’t understand why more Republicans don’t go “behind enemy lines.” Reagan did. As Breitbart said, “if you can’t sell liberty, you suck.” Republicans don’t even try to sell it. What a gutless and unimaginative party. Paul seem to get it.

rrpjr on March 20, 2014 at 3:30 PM

There are some in the Republican Party that believe the only way to win over voters is to throw them bones, i.e. amnesty. Others in the party will brandish [banish?] anyone that dares to reach out to non-traditional Republican voters as not being pure enough or panderers.

Reagan didn’t just rely on sweeping the Republican western states and winning enough of the Midwestern states to get to 270. Reagan campaigned in the heart of Carter Country in 1980, the south, and won every state with the exception of Georgia.

midgeorgian on March 20, 2014 at 4:39 PM

Reagan did not “go behind enemy lines” so much as he moved the lines themselves.
Reagan was well known and popular around the country before he entered presidential politics. He had also spent decades touring the country educating people about conservative principles. He “sold” conservatism because he taught people what that meant, and he gave the ideology a face.
People voted “Reagan” more than they voted “Republican” – which is why the gains didn’t stick.
No one in either party has the same stature or appeal (some have one or the other; most have neither).
Which is why Rand Paul is doing the “right thing” strategically (regardless of how you feel about his political positions). He is preaching to the converted (those who already agree with the highlighted positions), converting the preached to (with reason and passion), and giving his principles a familiar, friendly face.
It’s a long game — Reagan was in politics for a long time — but it’s the only one that will work if you aren’t “unique” in some way that has appeal outside of your own policies.